From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47733) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRJD-0006Qf-9K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:03:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRIs-0002Uc-JM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:03:15 -0500 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:44469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwRIr-0002S3-JD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:02:54 -0500 Message-ID: <56430227.20301@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:53:59 +0800 From: Shannon Zhao MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1446128855-26637-1-git-send-email-shannon.zhao@linaro.org> <56422B7A.3070107@redhat.com> <564259EC.2000308@redhat.com> <564299E0.8070405@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/8] Add system_powerdown support on ARM for ACPI and DT List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Shannon Zhao Cc: Wei Huang , Igor Mammedov , "Huangpeng (Peter)" , QEMU Developers , "Michael S. Tsirkin" On 2015/11/11 16:36, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 11 November 2015 at 01:29, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> On 2015/11/11 4:56, Wei Huang wrote: >>> I found this was caused by the change of "_HID" name for GPIO device. It >>> was changed from "LNRO0009" (v1) to "ARMH0061" (v2), which doesn't match >>> with my stock guest kernel PL061 driver. After changing the guest >>> kernel, it is working again. So: > >> Thanks very much for your help. The reason why I change the _HID is >> based on the _HID 0f PL011 which is ARMH0011. About the _HID of ARM >> company's devices, I have to say that I didn't see which _HID they >> should be at any public place. I heard(maybe it's not correct) there is >> a _HID list of ARM devices. If so, I think ARM should publish them in >> public, otherwise the only thing we can do is to guess or refer to >> existing _HID. > > Please confirm for definite the right _HID values; don't guess > them. If you say you don't know the right HID values and mark > a patchset as RFC we can go and try to find out the right > answers. If you just put guesses into a patchset we could > easily end up committing the patch with the wrong info... > Of course I will try to find the right _HID and tried before. But what I want to say is why ARM doesn't publish these _HIDs if there is really a list( I don't think this is a secret). And if there is not a list, ARM should create one since these devices belong to ARM. Thanks, -- Shannon